|
Good points Diego. That means it should be completely evident to everyone that the person is wearing a mask. That would definitely affect the times when it could be used.
Poker game? Probably okay; people wear sunglasses in poker.
Giving testimony to the king? Quoth a guard: "Take off that mask, show some respect!"
|
|
Good points Diego. That means it should be completely evident to everyone that the person is wearing a mask. That would definitely affect the times when it could be used.
Poker game? Probably okay; people wear sunglasses in poker.
Giving testimony to the king? Quoth a guard: "Take off that mask, show some respect!"
But they wouldn't know it's a mask. As soon as you put it on, it blends into your face as flesh-colored, pliable stone with no seams. The only downside is it makes you talk in monotone, unless you don't want it to, and then it doesn't. You could only tell something's different if you make sequential DC 25 Knowledge (Geology) and Spellcraft checks, and even then you could just Bluff them into disbelieving their identification of the item ("It's just botox!"). These are reasonable conclusions to draw from the 500gp item's description.
I do wish they'd get rid of the penalty to pass secret messages though. It just seems to be penalizing players for no good reason.
Also, since it's stone I should get an AC bonus.
|
|
We're getting along! We're discussing the impact of an item on the game. I would worry about running many social scenarios with this item and a player who thinks that it's a Bluff-everything-automatically card.
A player with 2 prestige could purchase this right before playing The Disappeared. Do you think there might be an issue there?
|
We're getting along! We're discussing the impact of an item on the game. I would worry about running many social scenarios with this item and a player who thinks that it's a Bluff-everything-automatically card.
A player with 2 prestige could purchase this right before playing The Disappeared. Do you think there might be an issue there?
I don't know about that one. My CMD (Cleric of Mass Diplomacy) rcked over that one fairly easy. A mix of Diplomacy and Intimdate to get us through the first part with possibly too much ease. (2 castings of Eagle's Glory, several Enhanced Diplomacy and a good use of Cultural Adaptation). Bluff wasnt what got us through, so much as a few well timed Intimadtes (Taldan noble calling the wait staff 'Jumped up colonists' and smoothing the the Embassy staff and one particular players faction mission) and I think only one or two bluff checks.
If I recall right the bluffing wasnt as helpful as the Diplomacy, but I was trying to stand out so the less socially skilled could sneak through.
|
I'll have to recheck the rules on circumstance bonuses to respond fully. I can't find them on the Prd.
That's because they didn't make the jump from 3.5 to Pathfinder. There is no text about applying circumstance bonuses to rolls. I believe that there are a few instances where something is listed as applying a circumstance bonus in Pathfinder, but there is nothing defining what one is or that the GM can apply them to rolls. I've searched my PDF of the CRB for this before.
|
|
You say: "I wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn. If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them - it appears to be a seamless statue-face, but once you get your fingers in there you can feel the edge."
So, to list the benefits:
- you don't see that the guy has a mask, you must search it by touching the guy face;
- you "wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn", great concession, when no one can see that the mask is worn;
- "If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them". Again, on what basis they will know that there...
They see the stone face effect and will likely attribute the effect to some kind of spell or item. The spell or item causing the effect can be identified from the effects as normal. Given that someone has identified the mask as something they want to target, they can do so.
|
They see the stone face effect and will likely attribute the effect to some kind of spell or item. The spell or item causing the effect can be identified from the effects as normal. Given that someone has identified the mask as something they want to target, they can do so.You say: "I wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn. If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them - it appears to be a seamless statue-face, but once you get your fingers in there you can feel the edge."
So, to list the benefits:
- you don't see that the guy has a mask, you must search it by touching the guy face;
- you "wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn", great concession, when no one can see that the mask is worn;
- "If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them". Again, on what basis they will know that there...
Exactly my point. You add a extra step in recognizing the mask existence, something that is not in the item description because "it is cool".
So what other item should be invisible because of the rule of cool?My 6' combat staff will become a walking stick "because it is cool"?
My spell component pouch will become invisible and require someone to pinpoint it with a 40 DC Perception check for an attempt to sunder it because "it is cool"?
|
|
Lines from the GMing 201 guide that support the idea that it might be better for the monotone speech to be done by the character and not a player.
Liven up dialogue: A GM reading text in a monotone is
tough on a player’s ears and attention spans.
While the player is not speaking as much as the GM, the principal still applies, it sucks energy from the table.
Exercise some restraint when first experimenting with NPC
attitude. Not everyone at the table might be completely clear
as to when the GM is acting a certain way and when it is instead
the NPC’s behavior.
Really a side point to my original statement, but I think it relevant to the idea that GMs should should not be placing their prejudices into the NPCs. If this item costed 50,000 gold I am certain we would not be having this conversation.
It may be that the players don’t know how to say something as well as their characters would. If that’s the case, try to figure out what a player’s intentions are...Not everyone has patience for roleplaying. Know when to back off the issue and move on; pushing the players to do things that are not at least somewhat fun for them is a sure way to bring a scenario to a grinding halt. Here’s where a bit of flexibility pays off...
In an organized play setting, it’s important to stick closer
to RAW. Those players who use an option based around a RAI
interpretation may find table variation when different GMs
rule differently on whether a particular ability works in the
player’s favor. Be cautious about embracing a 100% RAW
perspective, especially when adjudicating in-game effects
that do not rely on character build. The game does not have
a rule for everything, and on occasion it’s more important to
create a quick ruling that everyone will enjoy in the shortterm.
Just don’t set up false expectations about how the game
works with a one-time ruling.
|
|
Exactly my point. You add a extra step in recognizing the mask existence, something that is not in the item description because "it is cool".
So what other item should be invisible because of the rule of cool?
My 6' combat staff will become a walking stick "because it is cool"?
My spell component pouch will become invisible and require someone to pinpoint it with a 40 DC Perception check for an attempt to sunder it because "it is cool"?
While I can't say with 100% authority that it is supposed to blend in, that interpretation isn't unreasonable considering what it is stated to do. With all rules I try to interpret them in the way that would make the most sense by the mechanics given to them, not the way that would allow me to impose the ever elusive circumstance penalties the authors all knew that we would be figuring out on our own.
|
|
Sitri, I feel like we're all trying to interpret this item. I'm trying to interpret this item in terms of all factors I see: the description of the effect, the bonuses and penalties, and the cost.
I see that the cost is way off, and now I feel like I have to check over the description of the effect to make sure that it balances out with what I feel like a 500 gp item should do.
I've never had a player with this item at my table, so this is all theory at the moment. However, I don't think we should be damning those who are experimenting with different interpretations of this item.
X item disappear when you wear it is a big benefit.
A glamered armor pay 2.700 gp for the ability to appear as a piece of clothing.
You say: "I wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn. If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them - it appears to be a seamless statue-face, but once you get your fingers in there you can feel the edge."
So, to list the benefits:
- you don't see that the guy has a mask, you must search it by touching the guy face;
- you "wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn", great concession, when no one can see that the mask is worn;
- "If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them". Again, on what basis they will know that there is something to break or steal if they don't know the item is there?I don't see how you can claim that those aren't benefits
Diego, the item says that it transforms the wearer's face into a stone statue. Just the face.
- How can you say that the wearer has a stone face if the face is covered by a mask?
- Please take a look at the wording of the spell Polymorph. It states that it transforms a willing creature into... It is the same wording. How is it that no one is arguing that when the spell is cast that everyone else would see a medium creature wearing a bunny suit, or an eagle suit, etc..?
You can't argue that the stone face freaks people out and that the mask if visible - it is one or the other.
I would put forward that the wording choice was deliberate when they used the word transform - one that has been used for years in the spell polymorph.
The wording leads me to believe that the face does a bit of movement, as the wearer can speak (hard to do if you can't move your jaw and/or lips), but only the barest minimum required to allow speech.
When I first read the item, my mind envisioned granite. I can see the arguments for marble (thought my preference is for black and white marble, not flesh colored marble).
Do I think that the item is a bit underpriced and/or overpowered? Why yes, I do. Do I think that it needs to have an errata applied or be banned in PFS? Most likely. Do I think that I should add penalties or other obstructions to players using a legal item? No.
If GMs and VOs feel that it should be banned, they should be talking to Mike and/or John to make it so, as was once done with the Bracers of Falcon's Aim.
And again, how does penalizing a player for using a legal item make the game more enjoyable for you?
Sitri, I feel like we're all trying to interpret this item. I'm trying to interpret this item in terms of all factors I see: the description of the effect, the bonuses and penalties, and the cost.
I see that the cost is way off, and now I feel like I have to check over the description of the effect to make sure that it balances out with what I feel like a 500 gp item should do.
I've never had a player with this item at my table, so this is all theory at the moment. However, I don't think we should be damning those who are experimenting with different interpretations of this item.
I haven't seen it used nor do any of my PCs own one. I too am trying to find a good balance for it.
I become concerned when I see VO's stating that they don't like it, that they will penalize players for using it, and that no one is going to get them to change their mind (see first page). It smacks of an "I have made up my mind and don't try and confuse me with facts" attitude.
As others have mentioned, tieflings are not liked in a lot of areas of Golarion, but GMs don't apply circumstance penalties to them. Playing a tiefling doesn't cost anything and provides several bonuses. So why are some so upset about this mask?
I suspect that tieflings are a lot more common than this item.
Unbelievable lies are not believed at all. Using bluff to tell people that the sun rises in the North is not going to work.
|
|
I'll have to recheck the rules on circumstance bonuses to respond fully. I can't find them on the Prd.That's because they didn't make the jump from 3.5 to Pathfinder. There is no text about applying circumstance bonuses to rolls. I believe that there are a few instances where something is listed as applying a circumstance bonus in Pathfinder, but there is nothing defining what one is or that the GM can apply them to rolls. I've searched my PDF of the CRB for this before.
Hmm. So I guess that means giving bonuses based on good roleplaying is a houserule?
I don't like that even if it does mean penalizing players for the item is a bigger no-no.
|
|
As others have mentioned, tieflings are not liked in a lot of areas of Golarion, but GMs don't apply circumstance penalties to them. Playing a tiefling doesn't cost anything and provides several bonuses. So why are some so upset about this mask?
I've ran into some that do. When I referenced the text about Rakshasa are supposed to be immune to the prejudice of their kin, it has never changed anything, telling me it is the prejudice of the GM that is in effect and not some adherence to the role play of the situation.
I actually have even had one coup de gras my wife at one time for the justification that they were demons and she was an aasimar, albeit one that had the scion of humanity trait.
All this, just like the prejudice against the mask, reeks of BS to me. In a home game I think all this stuff is absolutely fine; the players and GMs are free to build this understanding from the start. But in PFS where judges are to run as written and we as players are making characters based on that assumption, the GM is doing a major disservice to the players and the PFS community by not being able to separate their personal feelings from the instructions of the campaign staff.
|
|
As others have mentioned, tieflings are not liked in a lot of areas of Golarion, but GMs don't apply circumstance penalties to them. Playing a tiefling doesn't cost anything and provides several bonuses. So why are some so upset about this mask?
I've ran into some that do. When I referenced the text about Rakshasa are supposed to be immune to the prejudice of their kin, it has never changed anything, telling me it is the prejudice of the GM that is in effect and not some adherence to the role play of the situation.
I actually have even had one coup de gras my wife at one time for the justification that they were demons and she was an aasimar, albeit one that had the scion of humanity trait.
All this, just like the prejudice against the mask, reeks of BS to me. In a home game I think all this stuff is absolutely fine; the players and GMs are free to build this understanding from the start. But in PFS where judges are to run as written and we as players are making characters based on that assumption, the GM is doing a major disservice to the players and the PFS community by not being able to separate their personal feelings from the instructions of the campaign staff.
Your story is something I find so very wrong for PFS. That's the kind of play that should be mentioned to a local VO.
|
|
But in PFS where judges are to run as written and we as players are making characters based on that assumption, the GM is doing a major disservice to the players and the PFS community by not being able to separate their personal feelings from the instructions of the campaign staff.
Unless what's written doesn't have a number associated with it and the player doesn't like it, in which case it's okay to re-skin or ignore it?
Honestly, how can you keep hitting that point so hard without any hint of irony?
|
|
Unless what's written doesn't have a number associated with it and the player doesn't like it, in which case it's okay to re-skin or ignore it?Honestly, how can you keep hitting that point so hard without any hint of irony?
Because until your circumstantial modifiers that work opposite of the stats given shows up on the item or written into the scenario, it is pure GM fiat. You can't claim any more right to RAW than the person who says, "Everyone thinks the mask is badass, you get a +20 to all diplomacy rolls as well."
And I am not re-skinning, I am interpreting in a way that makes sense for the modifiers rather than contrary to them.
And I have gone to great lengths to show you that it is written that what is expected of the player is not the same as what is expected of the character.
|
|
Because until your circumstantial modifiers that work opposite of the stats given shows up on the item or written into the scenario, it is pure GM fiat. You can't claim any more right to RAW than the person who says, "Everyone thinks the mask is badass, you get a +20 to all diplomacy rolls as well."
Honestly, how can you keep hitting that point so hard without any hint of irony?
If your lie relies on your emotional state, per the example I gave earlier, and you're wearing the mask that, RAW, forces you to speak in emotionless monotone, here are some options I have as a GM, RAW:
The lie is unlikely –5The lie is far-fetched –10
The lie is impossible –20
The lie is so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that it is true.
Here is how I would treat the situation, as a GM:
Me (as Guard #3): "The king has been poisoned!"
Player: "I am shocked at this very surprising news! We fought sometimes, but I loved him like a brother. I am utterly heart-broken. Why? WHY? WHY WAS HE TAKEN FROM US SO SOON!? OH GODS, WHYYYYYYYYY!!?"
Me (as GM): "i am shocked this is surprising i am heart-broken does not compute error 101100101 beep boop beep."
Player:
Me (as GM):
Player:
Me (as GM):
Player:
Me (as GM):
That's how I handle it the first time, or with beginners. Veteran players and repeat offenders get fewer warnings.
If you think that's unreasonable, then I don't know what else to say.
|
|
While I can't say with 100% authority that it is supposed to blend in, that interpretation isn't unreasonable considering what it is stated to do. With all rules I try to interpret them in the way that would make the most sense by the mechanics given to them, not the way that would allow me to impose the ever elusive circumstance penalties the authors all knew that we would be figuring out on our own.
Exactly my point. You add a extra step in recognizing the mask existence, something that is not in the item description because "it is cool".
So what other item should be invisible because of the rule of cool?
My 6' combat staff will become a walking stick "because it is cool"?
My spell component pouch will become invisible and require someone to pinpoint it with a 40 DC Perception check for an attempt to sunder it because "it is cool"?
Let's make it less "elusive". you are required to make a spellcraft check to recognize my spell component pouch? No.
X item disappear when you wear it is a big benefit.
A glamered armor pay 2.700 gp for the ability to appear as a piece of clothing.
You say: "I wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn. If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them - it appears to be a seamless statue-face, but once you get your fingers in there you can feel the edge."
So, to list the benefits:
- you don't see that the guy has a mask, you must search it by touching the guy face;
- you "wouldn't impose a penalty to identifying the mask while it was being worn", great concession, when no one can see that the mask is worn;
- "If someone wanted to steal or break it while it was being worn I'd let them". Again, on what basis they will know that there is something to break or steal if they don't know the item is there?I don't see how you can claim that those aren't benefits
Diego, the item says that it transforms the wearer's face into a stone statue. Just the face.
- How can you say that the wearer has a stone face if the face is covered by a mask?
- Please take a look at the wording of the spell Polymorph. It states that it transforms a willing creature into... It is the same wording. How is it that no one is arguing that when the spell is cast that everyone else would see a medium creature wearing a bunny suit, or an eagle suit, etc..?You can't argue that the stone face freaks people out and that the mask if visible - it is one or the other.
I would put forward that the wording choice was deliberate when they used the word transform - one that has been used for years in the spell polymorph.The wording leads me to believe that the face does a bit of movement, as the wearer can speak (hard to do if you can't move your jaw and/or lips), but only the barest minimum required to allow speech.
When I first read the item, my mind envisioned granite. I can see the arguments for marble (thought my preference is for black and white marble, not flesh colored marble).
Do I think that the item is a bit underpriced and/or overpowered? Why yes, I do. Do I think that it needs to have an errata applied or be banned in PFS? Most likely. Do I think that I should add penalties or other obstructions to players using a legal item? No.
If GMs and VOs feel that it should be banned, they should be talking to Mike and/or John to make it so, as was once done with the Bracers of Falcon's Aim.
And again, how does penalizing a player for using a legal item make the game more enjoyable for you?
So why someone should have to make a Perception check that requite him to touch me to recognize that I am wearing a mask that don't say anywhere that will blend with my face and disappear?
I find interesting that the people that scream "don't add something that is not in the item description" is liberally adding things to the item description.Here is a whole page of masks. Several cover the whole face, but at least as much cover only part of it.
The classic Commedia dell'arte mask is a half mask covering the eyes and part of the nose. Example
So claiming that a generic mask will always cover the whole face hasn't a basis.
Polymorph has nothing to do with the mask. Its construction requirements are: Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, innocence , stone shape; Cost 250 gp.
And again, how does penalizing a player for using a legal item make the game more enjoyable for you?
The usual gambit: "you are ruining the fun of other people".
I am not penalizing the player, I am taking the item at what it do, not what the player want it to do.1) I don't disappear;
2) to reiterate, it is a visible mask. A mask has social drawback if the situation isn't appropriate;
3) the mask has effects on the wearer face and his voice, when appropriate I should keep them in consideration.
It is all about "when appropriate". Pathfinder is a pen and paper game, not a computer game where B always follow A regardless of the other conditions.
It is a game where A+local conditions can result in B, B1, B2 and so on depending on what the local conditions are.
|
|
As others have mentioned, tieflings are not liked in a lot of areas of Golarion, but GMs don't apply circumstance penalties to them. Playing a tiefling doesn't cost anything and provides several bonuses. So why are some so upset about this mask?
I've ran into some that do. When I referenced the text about Rakshasa are supposed to be immune to the prejudice of their kin, it has never changed anything, telling me it is the prejudice of the GM that is in effect and not some adherence to the role play of the situation.
I actually have even had one coup de gras my wife at one time for the justification that they were demons and she was an aasimar, albeit one that had the scion of humanity trait.
All this, just like the prejudice against the mask, reeks of BS to me. In a home game I think all this stuff is absolutely fine; the players and GMs are free to build this understanding from the start. But in PFS where judges are to run as written and we as players are making characters based on that assumption, the GM is doing a major disservice to the players and the PFS community by not being able to separate their personal feelings from the instructions of the campaign staff.
Sitri, have you really read what you referenced about the Rakshasa beastbrood ?
Despite their haughty demeanor, beastbrood typically possess a natural charm that actually causes others to often grant them the deference they consider their birthright.
Unless playing a role, beastbrood always act like aristocrats, and usually, they get treated as such.
It is not about disregarding the fact that they have Rakshasa ancestors, it is about they behaving like aristocracy and being treated as such even when they aren't.
|
|
Deigo, it is an elusive penalty because no one can show me where it says wearing as mask gives you a penalty. This is a case of special pleading against this mask because lots of people wear different masks, and all manor of weird things, and no one feels inclined to apply social penalties there.
If a character hadn't pulled anything from a component pouch yet, I would not have an NPC sunder it. But then again this is a moot point since I have never to date sundered a component pouch and I typically carry two or three on all my casters that need them.
I don't know if the mask is meant to blend in or not. The first time I read it without talking to anyone else, that was my first assumption. I will grant you that it doesn't say this explicitly, but it it is the possible intent and it makes sense with the mechanics described. I would not want to add any extra mechanical bonus like inability to be sundered because of my interpretation, if people regularly went around sundering masks I would probably have to rethink my position. As it stands I don't see any added benefit besides realistically working as advertised. And at the end of the day I really don't care if it blends in or not, as long as it works as advertised.
On the Rakshasa, the point I made was that people should not treat them with hatred and prejudice because they are tiefling (as described in the quote it is quite the opposite), I said nothing about people not knowing they are tiefling.
So why someone should have to make a Perception check that requite him to touch me to recognize that I am wearing a mask that don't say anywhere that will blend with my face and disappear?
I find interesting that the people that scream "don't add something that is not in the item description" is liberally adding things to the item description.
Here is a whole page of masks. Several cover the whole face, but at least as much cover only part of it.
The classic Commedia dell'arte mask is a half mask covering the eyes and part of the nose. Example
So claiming that a generic mask will always cover the whole face hasn't a basis.Polymorph has nothing to do with the mask. Its construction requirements are: Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, innocence , stone shape; Cost 250 gp.
I find it ironic that part of your argument is that you aren't adding anything to the item, but then go on to apparently add in RP penalties.
I did not say that the spell polymorph was part of the construction of the mask, I said that the wording used in the spell is some of the same wording used in the mask - "transform". Can you point out anywhere else in Pathfinder that the word transform has been used where the item/creature is not changed?
If not, would that not suggest that the face is transformed, and for anyone to see that you now have a stone face, they would either have to be able to see through the mask (i.e. adding something to the item) or that the mask would have to fade into the face as part of the transformation?
In your examples of masks, you are using real world masks, saying that many do not cover the whole face, and apparently you believe the same of this mask. Why? if it "transforms" your face, would it not have to cover your whole face? Please note that all of the images of masks in Ultimate Equipment are full faced masks.
And again, how does penalizing a player for using a legal item make the game more enjoyable for you?The usual gambit: "you are ruining the fun of other people".
I am not penalizing the player, I am taking the item at what it do, not what the player want it to do.
I wasn't talking about "ruining" the fun of others. I was asking how your interpretation was making the game more fun for you.
1) I don't disappear;
2) to reiterate, it is a visible mask. A mask has social drawback if the situation isn't appropriate;
3) the mask has effects on the wearer face and his voice, when appropriate I should keep them in consideration.
Your number 1 and 3 are in contradiction of each other. If the mask is still visible, how does anyone know that your face is now stone?
Also, what situations do you see wearing the mask to be sociably acceptable (besides a masked ball)?
It is all about "when appropriate". Pathfinder is a pen and paper game, not a computer game where B always follow A regardless of the other conditions.
It is a game where A+local conditions can result in B, B1, B2 and so on depending on what the local conditions are.
I agree with most of the above, but, PFS games are supposed to run on the same rules around the world. Your interpretation seems to cancel out the mechanical bonus built into the item - that is a bigger variation than I feel should be acceptable in a PFS game.
If your lie relies on your emotional state, per the example I gave earlier, and you're wearing the mask that, RAW, forces you to speak in emotionless monotone, here are some options I have as a GM, RAW:
The lie is unlikely –5
The lie is far-fetched –10
The lie is impossible –20
The lie is so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that it is true.Here is how I would treat the situation, as a GM:
Me (as Guard #3): "The king has been poisoned!"
Player: "I am shocked at this very surprising news! We fought sometimes, but I loved him like a brother. I am utterly heart-broken. Why? WHY? WHY WAS HE TAKEN FROM US SO SOON!? OH GODS, WHYYYYYYYYY!!?"
Me (as GM): "i am shocked this is surprising i am heart-broken does not compute error 101100101 beep boop beep."
Player:
Me (as GM):
Player:
Me (as GM):
And I have no problem at all with that approach, and actually agree with it.
Now is the response from the player had been
mask wearing PC:While that King and I were not always in agreement in politics, this cannot be allowed to stand. The perpetuators must face justice for this. Summon clerics to neutralize the poison and, if gods are willing, have his soul called back to his body.
Would that have gotten a circumstance penalty if it happened in your game? Please note, I am assuming that the PC was responsible for the poisoning in this scenario.
|
Interestingly, a PC could try to resolve the situation with another bluff check, which might be quite believable:
PC: *tells a lie*
NPC: "What is that stupid mask you're wearing, anyway?"
PC: "Umm, yeah, I'm an adventurer and it's a magical mask that makes it harder to hit me in the face. It has this little side effect of making my voice a bit weird."
|
|
I find it ironic that part of your argument is that you aren't adding anything to the item, but then go on to apparently add in RP penalties.So why someone should have to make a Perception check that requite him to touch me to recognize that I am wearing a mask that don't say anywhere that will blend with my face and disappear?
I find interesting that the people that scream "don't add something that is not in the item description" is liberally adding things to the item description.
Here is a whole page of masks. Several cover the whole face, but at least as much cover only part of it.
The classic Commedia dell'arte mask is a half mask covering the eyes and part of the nose. Example
So claiming that a generic mask will always cover the whole face hasn't a basis.Polymorph has nothing to do with the mask. Its construction requirements are: Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, innocence , stone shape; Cost 250 gp.
I am not the one that scream "those modifier aren't in the item description". I pointed out your inconsistency in being strictly RAW when it is convenient for you and very slack when it isn't.
I did not say that the spell polymorph was part of the construction of the mask, I said that the wording used in the spell is some of the same wording used in the mask - "transform". Can you point out anywhere else in Pathfinder that the word transform has been used where the item/creature is not changed?
Sleeves of Many Garments
Price 200 gp; Aura faint illusion; CL 1st; Weight 1 lb.
These translucent cloth tubes easily fit over their wearer's arms. The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other nonmagical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise. When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form.
Construction Requirements
Cost 100 gp
Craft Wondrous Item, disguise self
I only needed the time to copy the reference.
An illusion that "transform" something, while both the kind of aura of the item and the spell used speak of a item that use an illusion to disguise the garments.
If not, would that not suggest that the face is transformed, and for anyone to see that you now have a stone face, they would either have to be able to see through the mask (i.e. adding something to the item) or that the mask would have to fade into the face as part of the transformation?In your examples of masks, you are using real world masks, saying that many do not cover the whole face, and apparently you believe the same of this mask. Why? if it "transforms" your face, would it not have to cover your whole face? Please note that all of the images of masks in Ultimate Equipment are full faced masks.
So the above mentioned sleeves would have to cover your whole body to work?
A heavy fortification chain shirt would not protect your legs or arms?The item description is silent on the mask aspect.
To counter your UC example, from the some source:
Grappler’s Mask
This mask is fashioned from dark leather decorated with geometrical patterns that emphasize the wearer’s fearsomeness. It covers the wearer’s face, but leaves his mouth and eyes uncovered.
Mask of the Skull
This fearsome-looking mask of ivory, beaten copper, or pale wood is typically fashioned into the likeness of a human skull with a missing lower jaw, allowing the bottom half of the wearer’s face to remain visible when the mask is worn.
And again, how does penalizing a player for using a legal item make the game more enjoyable for you?The usual gambit: "you are ruining the fun of other people".
I am not penalizing the player, I am taking the item at what it do, not what the player want it to do.
I wasn't talking about "ruining" the fun of others. I was asking how your interpretation was making the game more fun for you.
Oh, sorry, I hadn't realized that you were implying I was a sadist.
1) I don't disappear;
2) to reiterate, it is a visible mask. A mask has social drawback if the situation isn't appropriate;
3) the mask has effects on the wearer face and his voice, when appropriate I should keep them in consideration.Your number 1 and 3 are in contradiction of each other. If the mask is still visible, how does anyone know that your face is now stone?
Also, what situations do you see wearing the mask to be sociably acceptable (besides a masked ball)?
1) and 3) are in contradiction only if we accept your assumption that it is a full face mask.
The description of the item is totally silent about the item aspect.Wearing the mask is socially acceptable everywhere for:
- priest of Razmir;
- priest of Nethys;
- the images I have seen of the Galt enforcers wear a mask, so apparently it is a badge of office there;
- doctor masks (another badge of office).
Acceptable in the right conditions:
- actors and comedians,
- appropriate holidays (like Earth Halloween and Carnival).
That is thinking about it for a few minutes. If your character want to use this item constantly he can find other ways to justify wearing it.
I agree with most of the above, but, PFS games are supposed to run on the same rules around the world. Your interpretation seems to cancel out the mechanical bonus built into the item - that is a bigger variation than I feel should be acceptable in a PFS game.
It is all about "when appropriate". Pathfinder is a pen and paper game, not a computer game where B always follow A regardless of the other conditions.
It is a game where A+local conditions can result in B, B1, B2 and so on depending on what the local conditions are.
If you have read my posts almost always I speak of modifiers to the NPC initial reaction and so to the difficulty of diplomacy checks, not of bluff checks.
And of the opinion that when the lie is particularly absurd you will convince the listeners that you think you are saying the truth, not that what you are saying is the truth, regardless of how good is your Bluff check.Note that that is in the Bluff skill description:
"Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."
|
|
Interestingly, a PC could try to resolve the situation with another bluff check, which might be quite believable:
PC: *tells a lie*
NPC: "What is that stupid mask you're wearing, anyway?"
PC: "Umm, yeah, I'm an adventurer and it's a magical mask that makes it harder to hit me in the face. It has this little side effect of making my voice a bit weird."
Another good way to justify the mask. It has the drawback of identify you as a adventurer, something that you wouldn't always want to do.
Or you could say: "It is a mark of honor for Pathfinders. It mark me as someone that has worked well for the Decemvirate."
You could risk problems with the Decemvirate, but probably it would impress the locals.
I am not the one that scream "those modifier aren't in the item description". I pointed out your inconsistency in being strictly RAW when it is convenient for you and very slack when it isn't.
Could you please point out where I have done that?
I did not say that the spell polymorph was part of the construction of the mask, I said that the wording used in the spell is some of the same wording used in the mask - "transform". Can you point out anywhere else in Pathfinder that the word transform has been used where the item/creature is not changed?
Sleeves of Many Garments
Price 200 gp; Aura faint illusion; CL 1st; Weight 1 lb.
These translucent cloth tubes easily fit over their wearer's arms. The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other nonmagical set of clothing. These new clothes fit her perfectly and are always clean and mended unless she specifically designates otherwise. When she removes the sleeves, her clothes revert to their original form.
Construction Requirements
Cost 100 gp
Craft Wondrous Item, disguise self
I only needed the time to copy the reference.
An illusion that "transform" something, while both the kind of aura of the item and the spell used speak of a item that use an illusion to disguise the garments.
Doesn't that support my argument?
Unless you are saying that anyone can see the "sleeves" on the transformed set of cloths, layered on top?If you can't see the magical Sleeves of Many Garments when the wearer has used the item to change the appearance of their clothes, why are you saying that you can see the Mask of Stony Demeanor when it transforms their face to stone?
To counter your UC example, from the some source:
Grappler’s Mask
This mask is fashioned from dark leather decorated with geometrical patterns that emphasize the wearer’s fearsomeness. It covers the wearer’s face, but leaves his mouth and eyes uncovered.Mask of the Skull
This fearsome-looking mask of ivory, beaten copper, or pale wood is typically fashioned into the likeness of a human skull with a missing lower jaw, allowing the bottom half of the wearer’s face to remain visible when the mask is worn.
Again, doesn't this lend support to my argument that the mask is a full face mask? the ones that you listed specifically state that they do not cover the full face - leading me to believe that when they do not, the mask in question is a full face mask.
I wasn't talking about "ruining" the fun of others. I was asking how your interpretation was making the game more fun for you.
Oh, sorry, I hadn't realized that you were implying I was a sadist.
That is because I wasn't trying to imply that you were a sadist. Part of the discussion on this thread is about that fact that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone. It is obvious that if a GM rules that an item is less effective than a player thought it would (or should) be, that they would be having less fun. So I was wondering how the ruling made the game more fun for you, out of honest curiosity, not trying to insult you or imply that you are a sadist.
1) and 3) are in contradiction only if we accept your assumption that it is a full face mask.The description of the item is totally silent about the item aspect.
You seem to be avoiding answering the question. How can you say that an NPC can tell that the PC is wearing a mask and that that PC has a stone face at the same time. Shouldn't it be one or the other?
If my interpreation is correct, then the NPC does not see the mask, they simply see the stone face.
Wearing the mask is socially acceptable everywhere for:
- priest of Razmir;
- priest of Nethys;
- the images I have seen of the Galt enforcers wear a mask, so apparently it is a badge of office there;
- doctor masks (another badge of office).Acceptable in the right conditions:
- actors and comedians,
- appropriate holidays (like Earth Halloween and Carnival).That is thinking about it for a few minutes. If your character want to use this item constantly he can find other ways to justify wearing it.
Based on the above, it would appear that in your opinion there are very few times when a PC could wear the mask and not have a penalty assigned by you.
Out of curiosity, do you make people wearing full plate mail remove their helmets to talk to NPCs? Or talk to the nobility (or other important NPCs)?
If not, why not?
If not, would a PC wearing the mask under their plate mail helmet have any penalties due to the mask? No way of seeing the stone face and/or the mask, and most voices sound a wee bit monotone when they come out of a full helmet.
|
|
And I have no problem at all with that approach, and actually agree with it.
Now is the response from the player had been
mask wearing PC:While that King and I were not always in agreement in politics, this cannot be allowed to stand. The perpetuators must face justice for this. Summon clerics to neutralize the poison and, if gods are willing, have his soul called back to his body.Would that have gotten a circumstance penalty if it happened in your game? Please note, I am assuming that the PC was responsible for the poisoning in this scenario.
Nope (and, yeah, he totally poisoned that king).
All I'm saying, and all I've been saying, is that in cases where, for whatever reason, having a stone face and/or emotionless voice would adversely affect a skill check, you may get a penalty. Because it's an actual aspect of how your character looks and sounds, and not just fluff that you can handwave away.
So a Diplomacy check where you are trying to empathize with someone. Or soothe a scared child (maybe, really depends on the circumstances). Or Intimidate with a wrathful, primal scream (while a cool, calm, steely Intimidate would not incur a penalty, and could even get a bonus).
And as I said, this is the same awareness a player should have if their character is carrying around a giant weapon, or stomping around in full plate.
And not to open another can of worms, but yes, a Tiefling or Halfling may find certain social encounters difficult in the heart of Cheliax. And a Chelaxian slaver with slave in tow will probably raise some eyebrows in Andoran. Because it's my as a GM to make the world more than a collection of numbers. If my NPCs react identically to any given set of PCs, I'm not doing a good job at storytelling. I may as well read the box text in emotionless monotone and call them <Player 1>.
|
|
First of all, regardless how the mask makes you look, it gives you a +10 bonus to lie. So you can’t really impose a penalty based on the look or sound of the person, because you have to assume that penalty is part of the item and its wrapped into the +10 bonus.
However, you could shift the NPCs starting attitude one or two steps depending on circumstances. If they normally would start at Indifferent, you could shift them to Unfriendly or Hostile because of the look and sound of the person. The higher DCs wouldn’t completely mitigate the +10, but would make some sense.
Additionally, a far fetched lie is +10 DC, and an Impossible Lie is +20 DC.
Furthermore, just because you rock at bluff (see the +42 above), does not mean NPCs will just do whatever you want them to.
Bluff is not a skill that should allow you to end-around or back-door plot elements of a scenario just because you lie really well.
Some NPCs just aren’t going to listen to you, no matter how well you lie.
The only time this mask becomes an issue, is if the GM is letting bluff work willy nilly for lying.
All I'm saying, and all I've been saying, is that in cases where, for whatever reason, having a stone face and/or emotionless voice would adversely affect a skill check, you may get a penalty. Because it's an actual aspect of how your character looks and sounds, and not just fluff that you can handwave away.
Then you and I are in agreement.
I jumped into this discussion/difference of opinon thread because I was seeing GMs and at least one VO say that they would systematically apply a penalty to anyone wearing the mask. I object to that kind of approach if the item itself doesn't specify that kind of activity/response.
Since I failed my will save and can't leav well enough alone
:)
If I ever have a character use one of these masks, I will have it on a PC that can cast Presdigiation - to give the stone face some color.
|
|
the whole thread is TL;DR because its a bunch of back-n-forth that I didn't really want to read.
However I do think some folks brought up, but I wanted to emphasize:
Bluff is not the end-all be-all skill. It will most often, not allow you to change an NPCs starting attitude (that's what diplomacy is for). So you told a really good lie, and the guy believes you.
Just because he believes your lie, does not mean his attitude will change at all. It does not mean he will act on your lie. It does not mean that you get to control his actions. It does not mean that he will do something against what he's been ordered to do.
All it means is that he believes your lie.
|
|
All I'm saying, and all I've been saying, is that in cases where, for whatever reason, having a stone face and/or emotionless voice would adversely affect a skill check, you may get a penalty. Because it's an actual aspect of how your character looks and sounds, and not just fluff that you can handwave away.Then you and I are in agreement.
I jumped into this discussion/difference of opinon thread because I was seeing GMs and at least one VO say that they would systematically apply a penalty to anyone wearing the mask. I object to that kind of approach if the item itself doesn't specify that kind of activity/response.
Since I failed my will save and can't leav well enough alone
:)
If I ever have a character use one of these masks, I will have it on a PC that can cast Presdigiation - to give the stone face some color.
Giving penalties to other social skills is perfectly fine. Giving penalties to Bluff for lying is not appropriate.
|
|
Giving penalties to other social skills is perfectly fine. Giving penalties to Bluff for lying is not appropriate.
Unless the very nature of the item makes the lie improbable or impossible. Example:
"this is my normal face and the mere suggestion that it is not has filled me with rage."+10 Competence bonus to Bluff from Mask of the Stony Demeanor
-10 Circumstance penalty (as specified in the Bluff skill description) due to stone face on fleshy body and lack of discernible rage
|
|
Giving penalties to other social skills is perfectly fine. Giving penalties to Bluff for lying is not appropriate.Unless the very nature of the item makes the lie improbable or impossible. Example:
"this is my normal face and the mere suggestion that it is not has filled me with rage."
+10 Competence bonus to Bluff from Mask of the Stony Demeanor
-10 Circumstance penalty (as specified in the Bluff skill description) due to stone face on fleshy body and lack of discernible rage
As always, there will be circumstances that flout the rule.
But my statement still stands, but let me clarify.
Giving arbitrary penalties to Bluff for lying is not appropriate.
|
|
And lets be clear here.
Lying is not always going to be the appropriate approach to a situation (social or otherwise) regardless how good you are at it.
A player doesn't know what other mitigating circumstances are surrounding an NPC, so no matter what they roll, a lie might just fail by GM Fiat because its so Impossible, the NPC just can't believe it.
This really isn't that powerful of an item, because it is actually fairly difficult to lie in Pathfinder unless you know all the variables.
|
|
You seem to be avoiding answering the question. How can you say that an NPC can tell that the PC is wearing a mask and that that PC has a stone face at the same time. Shouldn't it be one or the other?1) and 3) are in contradiction only if we accept your assumption that it is a full face mask.
The description of the item is totally silent about the item aspect.
It is your personal interpretation that the mask is a full face mask and disappear when worn, you have no basis for that. In the Ultimate Equipment, AFAIK, 3 mask are described, 1 of those is a half face mask, 2 are full face but one is the Grappler’s Mask that leave a visible enough skin to tell if the guy wearing it is stone or not.
You argument "you listed specifically state that they do not cover the full face" is laughable. first you don't define something by the absence of it, second, if we follow your argument, the 2 masks that are specified as full face mask, will make all the other mask half face mask.
Face is defined as:
face (fs)
n.
1.
a. The surface of the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin and from ear to ear.
Even most complete masks don't cover all that.
Seeing that the part of the face that is not covered by the mask as turned to stone is easy.
Out of curiosity, do you make people wearing full plate mail remove their helmets to talk to NPCs? Or talk to the nobility (or other important NPCs)?
In a social situation? Yes.
Even in the real world in a a battlefield it was a courteous gesture to open the helmet and show your face when speaking with someone (and it made easier to comprehend you too).
You go to the market in full armor? Or even better, you go to a moneychanger office in full armor and with your weapons?
Bearing your weapons in the presence of a noble was allowed to other nobles, they personal bodyguards and few other people (as long as you weren't on a battlefield).
Bearing armor was less restricted, but it wasn't a no issue as you seem to think.
If not, would a PC wearing the mask under their plate mail helmet have any penalties due to the mask? No way of seeing the stone face and/or the mask, and most voices sound a wee bit monotone when they come out of a full helmet.
Outside of a situation where ti is appropriate to wear a fulla rmor? Yes, I would change the NPCs initial disposition on that (and not for wearing the mask, as it is not visible).
Giving penalties to other social skills is perfectly fine. Giving penalties to Bluff for lying is not appropriate.
Again, I have no issue with penalties when they are appropriate. But to assign an automatic penalty of 1 or 2 levels of hostility/atitude on the diplomacy chart seems to be a large over reaction to the mask.
If the PC hasn't done anything to the NPC and/or doesn't have a negative reputation, I don't see why a merchant, tavern keeper or guard would be anything but have an "indifferent" atitude.
If there have been a number of swindlers using the mask recently, sure. But I have yet to see one of those situations in a PFS scenario (mind you, I haven't read all of them).
Penalites assigned based on the scenario and player actions, I have no real problem with. Those assigned because a GM feels that the item is overpowered and/or unpriced, I have an issue with.
I would prefer that a GM mention that the item may not work as expected when players are planning the encounter, rather than after 15 mintues of planning, spellcasting, etc.. and only then be told by the GM that the mask automatically instills hostility in NPCs (as some GM has been suggesting in this thread).
|
|
Something is wrong when we're citing dictionary definitions of "face".
I agree. This is not an issue of the item itself, or the actual bonus it confers. Or even the effects it has on your person.
This isn't about price either.
Its actually about expectations, both player and GM.
GM's expect players to be reasonable.
Players expect GM's to be reasonable.
The problem is, the definition of reasonable between the two parties is not always the same thing.
And to be frank, I think this problem arises more because players have unreasonable expectations of what certain skills are capable of, than because GMs are unreasonable in what they allow certain skills to accomplish.
If we, as players, realize that Bluff, and more specifically lying, is not the end-all, be-all action to take, then it will make this item, its price, and its bonuses and penalty quite a minor thing. If we as players realize that there are simply some circumstances where lying is wholly inappropriate in an effort to accomplish the mission at hand, then this becomes a non-issue.
If GMs, also learn all the modifiers that can be added to a Bluff check, and realize that bluff is not a skill that can modify an NPC's attitude, then most of this issue goes away. If a GM also realizes he has a right to indicate that an NPC is unaffected by the lie, regardless how awesome the player rolled, should circumstances indicate that the NPC wouldn't care whether the lie is truth or not... then this all goes away.
The problem isn't this item. It is unrealistic expectations of players and GM's who don't actually know the rules of bluff well enough to adjudicate it fairly without getting bullied by the player with unrealistic expectations.
It is your personal interpretation that the mask is a full face mask and disappear when worn, you have no basis for that. In the Ultimate Equipment, AFAIK, 3 mask are described, 1 of those is a half face mask, 2 are full face but one is the Grappler’s Mask that leave a visible enough skin to tell if the guy wearing it is stone or not.
You argument "you listed specifically state that they do not cover the full face" is laughable. first you don't define something by the absence of it, second, if we follow your argument, the 2 masks that are specified as full face mask, will make all the other mask half face mask.
Even most complete masks don't cover all that.
Seeing that the part of the face that is not covered by the mask as turned to stone is easy.
Does this mean that the player fcan determine how much of the face is covered their mask? As you and I have different opinions on the area that the mask covers.
So, would you accept a player using this mask saying that their mask if a full face mask?
And my comments on "transform" meaning that the mask, as part of the transformation process, is no longer in view, with only the stone face in view?
|
|
The problem isn't this item. It is unrealistic expectations of players and GM's who don't actually know the rules of bluff well enough to adjudicate it fairly without getting bullied by the player with unrealistic expectations.
Yes.
Some players expect to be able to mind control any NPC with a skill check. And these are usually the same players who find the idea of an NPC having any effect on their PC's behavior to be reprehensible.
Something is wrong when we're citing dictionary definitions of "face".I agree.
Of course something is wrong!
This is the internet.
There is always something wrong (and on the rare occasions that there isn't, we make something up or "misunderstand" someone's comment).
:) [/humour]
|
|
Something is wrong when we're citing dictionary definitions of "face".I agree. This is not an issue of the item itself, or the actual bonus it confers. Or even the effects it has on your person.
My problem is when a player try to claim that:
1) the mask cover the entire face, so there is no way to recognize that the face has turned to stone, as by the item description;
and/or
2) the mask disappear when worn, so no one can tell you are wearing a mask.
Both are "this item as some drawback, but I will not recognize them".
Something is wrong when we're citing dictionary definitions of "face".I agree. This is not an issue of the item itself, or the actual bonus it confers. Or even the effects it has on your person.
My problem is when a player try to claim that:
1) the mask cover the entire face, so there is no way to recognize that the face has turned to stone, as by the item description;
and/or
2) the mask disappear when worn, so no one can tell you are wearing a mask.
Both are "this item as some drawback, but I will not recognize them".
Diego, we will have to agree to disagree. We simply have different interpretations on how some magic works.
|
|
Something is wrong when we're citing dictionary definitions of "face".I agree. This is not an issue of the item itself, or the actual bonus it confers. Or even the effects it has on your person.
My problem is when a player try to claim that:
1) the mask cover the entire face, so there is no way to recognize that the face has turned to stone, as by the item description;
and/or
2) the mask disappear when worn, so no one can tell you are wearing a mask.
Both are "this item as some drawback, but I will not recognize them".
So that's when you, as a GM, put your foot down and tell them what your "table variation" interpretation of it is. If they try to bully you, you can invite them to leave your table.
|
|
And my comments on "transform" meaning that the mask, as part of the transformation process, is no longer in view, with only the stone face in view?
Again this argument. there is something in the item description saying that it disappear? No.
So it don't disappear.It transform your face, not itself, not you hands, not any other part of your anatomy. The face.
The item seem to assume as recognizable that you have a stony face, but it don't say it explicitly. So that is customizable by the player, but then he has a mask covering his whole face.
If you want to see what is the reaction to that around in banks or stores what they think of people entering with motorcycle helmets on, or people with a chador.